Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

There has been nothing so hilarious for me in studying theology than to translate the Gospels alongside The Message translation of the Bible. If anyone ever feels down just try it and I guarantee it will brighten your day. I think God took one look at it in an endeavor to see how many words were added or taken away and said, "I give up."

I call the Message "the fortune cookie bible" because it reads like a fortune cookie. I will never understand... and can you believe that it is actually technically considered a translation rather than a paraphrase? crazy...

The church I attend with my parents has recently switched to using the Message when referencing Scripture during the service. Who needs stand up comedy when, while being cognizant of what the Bible actually says, I can listen to the Bible for Dummies. The first time I read it, I actually thought it was a commentary. Just another case of Protestantism shooting itself in the foot.

Yeah....it's pretty bad. That being said there are parts of it that are wonderful. But close to the Greek text? Not by a long shot. That's what happens when you go to the extreme end of dynamic translation.

Also....I didn't think it could be considered a translation, since it was done by only one person.

For my favorite translation (or paraphrase) check out J.B. Phillips translation of the NT. It is wonderful. He originally translated just a book for his youth group in England, but C.S. Lewis encouraged him to finish his work, and he did. There are a few very peculiar British figures of speech, but other than that, it's a great read.

The "translator" must have thought the English-speaking populace was so stupid that it could only understand a Scripture filled with the most simplistic metaphors and platitudes. What I love about the New Testament in its original language is that, while the language would have been readily understandable even to a child in Ancient Greece, it could concurrently maintains it potence and philosophical depth. The Message, however, in endeavoring to make it accessible to everyone who can read a picture book, robbed it of its dignity and puissance.

Our Father in Heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best--
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes.Yes.Yes

I'm not qualified to have an opinion about the accuracy of the translation in the King James Version; the consensus seems to be that for 1611 it was pretty good. As a devout atheist, I still consider it one of the greatest, most majestic pieces of writing in the English language. It's funny that while Shakespeare tried to keep his language modern and up to the minute, we need half a page of footnotes on every page to understand him, whereas the KJV is purposely archaic in its language, and we have no trouble understanding it. I wasn't aware of the NIV (New International Version?) before this, but this is just pathetic!

Our Father in Heaven,Reveal who you are.Set the world right;Do what's best--as above, so below.Keep us alive with three square meals.Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.You're in charge!You're ablaze in beauty!Yes.Yes.Yes

I particularly found the "Yes. Yes. Yes." ending moving.

I have heard of "The Message" but never read it. I have read about enough now I think.

Arvid wrote:I'm not qualified to have an opinion about the accuracy of the translation in the King James Version; the consensus seems to be that for 1611 it was pretty good. As a devout atheist, I still consider it one of the greatest, most majestic pieces of writing in the English language. It's funny that while Shakespeare tried to keep his language modern and up to the minute, we need half a page of footnotes on every page to understand him, whereas the KJV is purposely archaic in its language, and we have no trouble understanding it. I wasn't aware of the NIV (New International Version?) before this, but this is just pathetic!

the NIV is actually a very good translation--the examples given on this page are not from the NIV, but from the Message.

King James was ok for its time, but is extremely outdated now--a major part of the problem is that it was translated from faulty texts. The texts available to us now are more accurate and complete.

The astounding aspect to me of translations such as this one is that the person translating believes he can change idioms and colloquialize Scripture without introducing any individual interpretation. If one reads the "translator's" introduction to the Message, he says that he merely wishes to recreate the street language in which the New Testament was originally written in English. I am at a loss as to how one wishing to accomplish such a feat does not realize that he is interpreting the Scripture while concurrently "translating" it.

vir litterarum wrote:The astounding aspect to me of translations such as this one is that the person translating believes he can change idioms and colloquialize Scripture without introducing any individual interpretation. If one reads the "translator's" introduction to the Message, he says that he merely wishes to recreate the street language in which the New Testament was originally written in English. I am at a loss as to how one wishing to accomplish such a feat does not realize that he is interpreting the Scripture while concurrently "translating" it.

vir litterarum wrote:The astounding aspect to me of translations such as this one is that the person translating believes he can change idioms and colloquialize Scripture without introducing any individual interpretation. If one reads the "translator's" introduction to the Message, he says that he merely wishes to recreate the street language in which the New Testament was originally written in English. I am at a loss as to how one wishing to accomplish such a feat does not realize that he is interpreting the Scripture while concurrently "translating" it.

To a degree they are, but you cannot assert that the degree of interpretation present within the New American Standard and that within the Message are at all comparable. It is my belief that every Christian should endeavor to learn how to read the Scriptures as they were written, but of course in reality this will never happen. Furthermore, the Message is a "translation" by one man as opposed to a translation composed by a group of people. Individual interpretation in the Message, then, is not nearly as restrained as most other major translations.

vir litterarum wrote:To a degree they are, but you cannot assert that the degree of interpretation present within the New American Standard and that within the Message are at all comparable. It is my belief that every Christian should endeavor to learn how to read the Scriptures as they were written, but of course in reality this will never happen. Furthermore, the Message is a "translation" by one man as opposed to a translation composed by a group of people. Individual interpretation in the Message, then, is not nearly as restrained as most other major translations.

Yes. I think it is best to preserve any ambiguity the original readers might have sensed in translation if possible. I have never liked the Message personally. Something about its voice just bothers me. ;-)

vir litterarum wrote:To a degree they are, but you cannot assert that the degree of interpretation present within the New American Standard and that within the Message are at all comparable. It is my belief that every Christian should endeavor to learn how to read the Scriptures as they were written, but of course in reality this will never happen. Furthermore, the Message is a "translation" by one man as opposed to a translation composed by a group of people. Individual interpretation in the Message, then, is not nearly as restrained as most other major translations.

I wasn't assigning any evaluation to the term. You had said that the message "introduces" interpretation... my point was simply that all translations do. ;)

klewlis wrote:I wasn't assigning any evaluation to the term. You had said that the message "introduces" interpretation... my point was simply that all translations do.

I agree. Doing some interpreting is unavoidable if you are translating. The little quote from The Message makes me think that it is more a poor interpretation than a translation.

I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture, that are either not normally there, or are not definite. When translating Holy writing, one should(IMHO), translate it as literal as possible, where grammar allows. Allowing even passages of abiguity or obscurity. Interpretation should be left to the individual. It's like how many translations put weights and measurements into modern equivalents. I admit, knowing that the darkness during the crucifixion was from the sixth hour to the ninth, is really noon to 3 PM can slow you down in your reading. However, numbers are very important in the Bible, and ofthen have symbolic meanings. Especially in prophecy.

I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture

This is precisely what Eugene Peterson, whether conscientiously or not, does in the Message. Of course there inevitably is going to be some degree of interpretation in any translation, but, in the NASB for example, words not in the original text are italicized and any translation into English idiom is only done where a passage is deemed not literally translatable by the translators. This type of interpretation is not individual because it is done by a council of translators and its intent is different from that of the Message's; therefore, when I stated that Peterson introduces"individual interpretation" into Scripture, this type of interpretation is indeed unlike that employed in any other translation, both in extent and nature.

I guess this all comes down to how we define and codify various types of "interpretation." Indeed, the very act of reading involves interpretation (decoding of written symbols into linguistic ideas, etc.).

I believe that interpretation is primarily a way to put theological beliefs into scripture

This is precisely what Eugene Peterson, whether conscientiously or not, does in the Message. Of course there inevitably is going to be some degree of interpretation in any translation, but, in the NASB for example, words not in the original text are italicized.....

This cause more confusion than clarity. Italics generally are viewed as a symbol to mark emphasis. Even if you don't view it that way, knowing that a word is not in the original text is of no help at all. Instead it makes people wonder why someone "added" that word.

My point is that interpretation of Scripture when composing a translation ought not be done on an individual level as it is done in the Message. Look at the fourfold aim of the NASB:

These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
They shall be grammatically correct.
They shall be understandable.
They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.

"no work will ever be personalized." All the Message is is a personalized translation.

And sometimes words must be added if the translators feel that, without such words, the translation may not have the same meaning as the original passage had in Greek. Should we not add "son of..." when it is not explicitly stated in the Greek text even though it is clearly implied?

The point is that one should keep interpretation to the minimum and have footnotes and whatnot for cases where the meaning of the original is ambivalent and the translator has to choose one or the other.

The difference is that if someone translated "What a day!" he/she wouldn't feel the need to add "what a miserable day it is" since it can be translated without any qualative interpretation. In the case of the Message we have such interpreting that goes far beyond the needs of translating the work.

You know, it's funny. I just got back from my Friday Night Ministry. I work with drug addicts and alcoholics that are working a Christian 12 step recovery program. There were several of my regular attendees there that were talking about the Message tonight. They were singing it's praises. Saying how, when they read something or hear something they don't understand, they'll look at it in the Message to see if they can figure out what it means.

This is one of the best ways to use the Message. With semi-literate, un-schooled, un-churched people. I have several friends that are barely literate, I would NEVER hand them a NASB. All it would do is frustrate them and make them feel stupid.

All that being said, I am starting a bi-weekly bible study after our meeting, and I will be using and teaching from the NIV. They will have the advantage of having someone there to help them understand what the passage is saying (in theory anyhow ) and how to understand it. I'm guessing I'll be using lots of inductive methods to help them understand what the heck the bible is saying.

The Message is a horrible translation to use as a study bible, however, in the NT times you wouldn't have had to even be literate to understand what was being taught...because it was such common colloquial language. That's all Peterson is trying to do with the Message, he's just taking more liberty with his colloquialisms than most of us would.

But people who use the Message do not understand just how eclectic of a work almost every other translation is and necessarily must be in order to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction. for instruction in righteousness." There are such a plethora of common language translations available such as the Living and New Living translations, which have been translated by a large gathering of experts in New Testament translation, that there is no reason to resort to the Message. The NIV, for example, was composed by 112 different translators! How presumptuous must Eugene Peterson be to assume that he could possibly produce a reliable translation by himself?! I understand that translations such as the King James and NASB do not reflect the colloquial nature of the original text as well some dynamic equivalence translations, but interpretation always arises when someone asserts that 'this idiom=this idiom'; therefore, in order for such a translation or whatever you would call a thing such as the Message, to be at all reliable, it needs to have the backing of scores of experts who have spent their lives studying Scripture asserting 'this idiom=this idiom.'

Isaiah 28:9
"Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us? Who are you to lord it over us? We're not babies in diapers to be talked down to by such as youâ€” 'Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's a good little girl, that's a good little boy.'"

vir litterarum wrote:It's not far off from that:

The Message Lord's Prayer:

Our Father in Heaven,Reveal who you are.Set the world right;Do what's best--as above, so below.Keep us alive with three square meals.Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.You're in charge!You're ablaze in beauty!Yes.Yes.Yes

Isaiah 28:9"Is that so? And who do you think you are to teach us? Who are you to lord it over us? We're not babies in diapers to be talked down to by such as youâ€” 'Da, da, da, da, blah, blah, blah, blah. That's a good little girl, that's a good little boy.'"

Actually from a Hebrew perspective, other than the "that's a good little girl, that's a good little boy" this is a pretty good translation of the text. He's simply trying to mimic what the Hebrew text says. It's repetitive in Hebrew (something Isaiah likes to do) and da, da, da, blah, blah, blah does that rather nicely.

The only bad part is now I have that stupid VW commercial song in my head....da, da, da......

vir litterarum wrote:But people who use the Message do not understand just how eclectic of a work almost every other translation is and necessarily must be in order to be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction. for instruction in righteousness."

I think I disagree with you here. It isn't necessary to understand how eclectic a translation is or how it necessarily must be. Are you saying that someone reading the Message would not be able to understand God's message of salvation for mankind? Are you suggesting that in reading it they wouldn't be able to find out those things that are profitable for doctrine et al.? I think God's message throughout the Bible is easy to understand and get a hold of. how much of what is mentioned in the last quote does a 8 year old understand? And yet, as Christians, we would think that an 8 year old's conversion is something genuine.

vir litterarum wrote: There are such a plethora of common language translations available such as the Living and New Living translations, which have been translated by a large gathering of experts in New Testament translation, that there is no reason to resort to the Message. The NIV, for example, was composed by 112 different translators! How presumptuous must Eugene Peterson be to assume that he could possibly produce a reliable translation by himself?!

What's funny to me about the above quote, is that even with 112 translators, they still managed to screw up quite a bit of the New Testament! Don't even get me started on "sinful nature" instead of "flesh", or a number of other foibles that they consistently do. All that being said, the NIV is my preffered translation (It's what I carry and study out of for an English Bible). Don't get me wrong here Vir....I'm not trying to attack you by any means. What I am trying to attack is the fact that, if the translation is not to our liking, it isn't worth anything. Oh, and yes, the NLT is a wonderful translation, but I personally like it even less than the Message. My wife loves it though, and I have handed it out to numerous new Christians in hopes that it is a translation that they will be able to understand.

vir litterarum wrote:I understand that translations such as the King James and NASB do not reflect the colloquial nature of the original text as well some dynamic equivalence translations, but interpretation always arises when someone asserts that 'this idiom=this idiom'; therefore, in order for such a translation or whatever you would call a thing such as the Message, to be at all reliable, it needs to have the backing of scores of experts who have spent their lives studying Scripture asserting 'this idiom=this idiom.'

I disagree wholeheartedly. One of my personal favorite translations is the J.B. Philips translation. I think he did a wonderful job in translating the NT. I would stack his translation up against any modern translation...and I mean ANY. I also think that I myself do a pretty good job in translating the NT. Not that I would do my own translation (who has the time for that!). Translation committees can be, on large part, a joke. You have the Greek guys, and the English guys, they can never fully agree, and more often then not they compromise somewhere in the middle, and everyone looses. I have one prof who was part of the NIV translation committe, and one who was part of the NASB translation committee. They were continually frustrated by the English guys saying, "No, we really can't translate it that way." All that being said, the aforementioned translations are both very good, but to say that without a committee a proper translation is impossible is, in my opinion, absurd.

Kopio wrote:... but to say that without a committee a proper translation is impossible is, in my opinion, absurd.

I agree. Tyndale, Luther and Erasmus come to mind.

vir litterarum wrote:So you are saying that you do not believe a translation by one man is any more "personalized" than a translation by fifty?

I don't know what you mean by "personalized."
A translation can sure benefit from extra minds. One can catch mistakes of the other etc.
Maybe you mean by 'a personalized translation' the translation of someone who is not out to do his honest best at arriving at a good translation but who wants others to read what he thinks it should say.

There are certainly benefits from a large translation group...but there can also still be problems with a large translation group. Take the NWT for instance....I think it's a poor translation, mainly because it is a translation with a theological axe to grind.

Please don't get me wrong....I'm really not that big of a fan of the Message. I've read it, and like you there have been spots where my stomach has turned (especially in James). But it does have it's uses. His translation of Ephesians 6 I found particularly insightful, simply because he knocks out all of the figures of speech (the whole armor of God thing) and puts it into plain English. Surely some of what he is doing is exegesis not just translation, but like I said...it does have it's place. There is no way I am going to hand a semi-literate, one week clean and sober addict a NASB...it's going to go way over his head. What I would do is have him read that and then move onto something more literal, but only if he has a good commentary (meaning one that doesn't have a lot of Greek and technical jargon) or someone to study it with.

Would I ever carry the Message around as my main bible...not on your life. But it serves a purpose...that's all I'm trying to say.

FWIW, I am getting ready to do a Bible study with the aforementioned addicts and alcoholics, and I will be using the NIV, as will they (I am providing the bibles and all that stuff). One of the biggest problems with theology, Christianity, and the bible, is that so many people can't understand our "Christianese". If you don't believe me, next Sunday ask your standard pew sitter what "Sanctification" means. Or to be "Sanctified". About 80-90% have no idea what it means, and yet they read it all the time. The list goes on...justification, glorification, even Glory....it's a tenuous concept to them, even though they sing about it every Sunday and read it in their bible. It is my hope to help these newer Christians our in learning these thing, but I'm gonna sneak up on them and teach them a whole lot of theology...perhaps after I'm through with it all, I'll talk about what major theological doctrines we have covered and give them the fancy names for them. Vicarious atonement means nothing to most Christians, but "Christ died in your place, and in doing so, you died with him" makes much more sense.

I have no problem with dynamic equivalence translations for young Christians or those who are semi-literate; I just have a problem with translations composed by only one person. If the Message were composed by several people, I would not object to its usage. I am not saying that the format typically used in councils for translating the New Testament is good or bad; my only point is that, like Bert said, when you have a group of scholars gathered together, they will catch each other's mistakes. It is indeed absurd to think that someone, unless he is claiming divine inspiration, can literally translate the New Testament in any fashion without putting in his two cents, whether conscientiously or not. This is inevitable, so the compromise you vituperate is a necessity in any reliable translation because it minimizes "personalization" within any translation.

I guess we'll just have to disagree then. I do concede that you do have a valid point, that a committee does have it's benefits. My only point is that even with a committee translation there is still plenty of personalizations that are put into the text. The NASB is clearly translated with a dispensationalist, pre-trib standpoint. There are plenty of theological decisions made in any translation that come down to biblical theological principles.

For instance.....the famous "Christ in you" found in Colossians 1:27...grammatically it can be "Christ among you" there is no difference in the construct. How do you resolve this problem?? At some point you have to decide. Whether it is a large committee, or a single person, the process is the same, you have to make a decision. I have one Greek prof who says it is "Christ among you", and another who says it is "Christ in you"...but here's the funny thing, the problem can't be resolved with Greek, you have to look at the larger style, theology, and context of the verse to make a determination. And still...either one could be right or wrong!

Is a committee translation more reliable? Probably. Is it a better translation? Maybe. But as I said before, check out the J.B. Phillips translation, he was a first class scholar, and he grappled with the syntax and grammar, as well as with the colloquial language of the NT. For the record, it is my favorite translation, and one I hand out to many people for it's ease of reading and it's faithfulness to the text.

Ok, Vir.....I think I'm beating a dead horse here! But one more point and then I'll shut up. It should be noted that some of the greatest translations of ancient documents are done by a single author. Look at Homer, Plato, the Church Fathers, and many more. Most of the best translations are done by a single scholar, who is incredibly qualified, and specialized in his study.